Rhino Richards

Jack, You could draw that analysis on last year's attendances or the year before that. Our home ground attendances and support are crap. A good bellwether is a home game against the Kangas. We would struggle to get 20,000. Indeed the North home game pulled 23,000 members from a Club with 30,000 members. I think your nitpicking for the sake of it. Unfortunately very few supporters actually want to open their eyes. When Harris was sacked and when Wilson and Smith wrote an article that we were in crisis 3 months ago it was roundly scoffed at and those that defended that line attacked. It was a surprising response on this site from posters who would be more interested than average in the MFC situation. I think its a central challenge of McNamee's tenure...developing MFC to actually represent something that people and sponsor want to align with, associate with and be part of. At the moment we have no location base, no training centre, we dont represent an identifiable demographic (sorry ski lovers), at all levels, low acceptance or take up of the brand and from the experiences of other posters we do not do the little things well in the way the Club interacts with the public. Harris was a continuation of the malaise that has inflicted MFC. Initially he did turn around some of the immediate financial shortfalls but was a disaster after that whose mark is still being felt. McNamee's big challenge is to make MFC actually represent something to sponsors, members and supporters. Out of nearly all the other Victorian based clubs, I struggle to define a profile and its attributes of what MFC does stand for and who it actually represents. Its generational lack of on field success has only complicated that process. MFC does not have many more roles of the dice in its current form if it does not get things right.

So what did it solve exactly? Sounding like an apologist Choko!

Exactly its not a solution. Does that make you an apologist in the same way for not burning your ticket over your grievances? A wonderful exhibition of buttering the bread on both sides. Well done.

When you considered how he was made Captain, it was a disgrace. Talk about a Clayton's appointment. The destructive Cousins was the real Captain there in both a positive and a negative sense. When Judd held the premiership cup up there on the dias, he immediately called Cousins up with him. It was an appointment of contingency not of merit and award. I think the culture at WCE would have appalled Judd and good on him for giving such environments the flick. And regardless of the accusation of more money, he could have held WCE over a barrel and got the same or more especially with Cousins finished. Its an unreasonable expectation to think footballers will not seek to get out of the game what they can. Its a pity some people cant move on.

uami, I dont think it was a salary cap issue. I honestly believe that Neitz thought he was still capable of providing leadership and a KPP influence. And the given the Club's lack of both lead them to acquiensce to the decision. I wish we had ready replacements for both roles. We dont and the Club had a decision to make. As for Neitz I think its a case of players not knowing just when their time is up. You see it alot with cricketers and footballers. Its a smart player that can clearly understand their time is up especially after doing it for 15+ years. You are very knoweledgeable with hindsight now. There is no doubt that Neitz has deteriorated from last year. There is no evidence that Robbo and Holland offer any solutions to us. Robbo's continually dragged during games and must be on the edge of being dropped. We had him on the trade table and we should have traded him without doubt. He is exactly the sort of player who would not fit DB's requirements. The 150th issue is a furphy and out of character for a guy who has been a valiant foot soldier to the Club and not sort to be selfish throughout his career. And given that goes against what you believe DB is trying to do at the Club should make you think twice about the veracity of your speculation.

Fair enough. Schwartz had one stellar year. Hart had many and had it not been for Carey and possibly Brereton would have been the best CHF I have seen.

Haha. Hell no!

Correct DW. We got pick #42 for Bishop as part of that in 1999. Bassett was on our rookie list at the start of 1997 and was elevated to the senior list that year but sustained a serious injury and was either traded or delisted. I do not recall him playing a game for us.

CC carboshed the first argument. I think it will be a statement say that the Club and players realise the disappointment and frustration of the supporters at the performance. The Club is working hard to improve those performances and is seeking the continued support of members and supporters as it develops its players.

Did you ever see Hart play? Its a big call I agree with you about Flower.

1. White nudging Neitz. 2. Rivers nudging PJ 3. Morton 4. Flower by a mile.

One man's fiction becomes another man's fact.

Speculation in the absence of fact is one of this Forum's achilles heels. I struggle how a KPP is keeping another slow midfielder prospect out of the mix. Holland was retained to cover injury to preferred players and pinch hit odd role. He will retire at year. He wont play in the next premiership and has no scope for improvement. Robbo can barely retain his own position in the team. He wont be around to play in the next premiership and while there is massive scope for improvement in some areas he wont make them or simply cant. And then there is the issue of lack of leadership as well. Interesting that your opinion does not back up your central argument. And I also thought it wise you dropped the speculation argument. No weight in it.

Bub, Over the years there have been a number of posts/threads on what is wrong with the MFC marketing department. Typically they identify an unhappy or unsatisfactory experience had by a member/supporter or they bemoan the low membership. Too often, the regrettable unhappy experience is flogged on websites like these where in many cases the aggrieved party has not issued a letter/commnication of complaint to the Club to inform them of this and to seek fair resolution and also to highlight to the Club problems which it needs to resolve. However, the first port of call is to post a critical version of events on a websites which gives the habitual whingers a hobby horse to potshot the Club and denies the Club useful feedback to rectify the problem. I have read the numerous marketing initiatives posted here and have yet to see one that represents a defineable and clear commercial opportunity for the Club, In fact many of them posted are complete rubbish that dont have zac of commercial basis and are ignorant of the dilemma that MFC is in but are trumpeted by the poster as the next big thing and why does not the Club do this?? Then if the Club does not do the initiative see this as further evidence of how pisspoor the Club is . I am sorry I have not joined in this ritual because frankly I dont see the benefit unless I had a good plan. And if I did I would inform the Club rather than joining a pissing contest for half baked ideas on a website. FWIW, in order to defend my position, I work in a high profile highly regulated service industry where customer development, brand awareness, relationship management and reputation are paramount. I am fortunate to work with a company that has the financial resources to back its objectives with a CEO capable of delivering on those objectives in an industry where there are real opportunities to grow. I make those comments as a contrast to what I know about MFC. Cash strapped, financially frugal, poor CEO and high staff turnover. Its no wonder some members have poor experiences with the Club. MFC needs to improve here. But some of the efforts to bag the Club without appropriate action to allow the Club feedback and an opportunity to correct it is a shameful behaviour from supporters. I hope McNamee can instill better outcomes going forward. In regard the situation DR put forward. Lets get some facts straight. His Godson was over for the QB weekend and he wanted to replicate the mascot situation that Adelaide did in Tassie with MFC. MFC had competing interests on its biggest day of the year and had already granted this to the child of a sponsor. I dont see a legitimate basis for the Club to compromise the sponsor or his/her son's experience by the replacement with DR's godson. And lets get it straight, the Godson is not the sick kid. The Godson has very sick sister and she remained in Tassie. Adelaide astutely took advantage of an opportunity when in Tassie to leverage some publicity where it had stuff all supporters and little profile being out of town. I dont think this would have been the case had they been at AAMI playing either Port or Collingwood. So I dont accept MFC's failure on the mascot issue. Secondly I dont see it as a publicity opportunity because 1. The Godson was not a sick kid 2. As Nugget points out, the invitation to sick kids to be mascots happens regularly and does not get press coverage in Melb papers. Also in Tassie they get 4 games a year. 3. The matter had already been covered by The Mercury in Tassie so was unlikely to be recycled again in a Melb paper. So I dont see the great publicity angle or the justification to withdraw something that was promised to an executive of a major sponsor. Its a good case study if MFC ever played an out of town match at location where not much AFL is played say in the Gold Coast or Darwin to extract some kudos. But you are right MFC should be looking at positive community based opportunities where they can be had. But this was not one of them. The failures of MFC in this situation is not to have offered a token autographed photo or something as an aside for DR's godson. The Club needs to address that. But its a pity that there was not a formal communication of this concern to the Club in training younger staff.

James Cook kicked six in his first game for the Demons then did a knee the following week and finished his career. How is he the worst player?

You have previously claimed to be in the sports betting industry. An industry that lives or dies by its access to information and you did not have internet access at work! Bizarre. Actually a football club is not like every other industry and that may partially explain your frustration with it. And not signing up membership certainly fixed them didn't it? That's effective. Good work.

I wouldn't expect you to follow the discussion anyway. So a football club is like a restaurant? Is the menu like the game plan? There's trouble. Your response not to renew your membership says enough about your level of support and ability to resolve an issue. P.S. PSD info is available on the web. Its bizarre if you had to call the club unless the information sought is not publicly available then the Club would seem within its rights to not release it.

I agree with your comments about some of the posts here. Some of the ridicule is uniformed and insulting of players. However, because of the venue chosen and the nature of the poster, I thought that it was more insulting than some of the forgettable comments here. There was nothing heroic or brave about what they did.

What's Barass done wrong?

That the sort of rubbish you would get on this site.

Good criteria for worst player! Given the way MFC has played over the past seven years we have given commentators good reason to be critical.

Chris Woodman No 41

Agree Jarka. The Club treated its 1970s champions very very poorly. Their bitter treatment of Alves then Wells was appalling.

Stan Alves 226 games for MFC between 1965 and 1976. 2 B & Fs in 1972 and 1974 Runner up in Brownlow in 1975. Captain 1973 to 1976 Represented Victoria 6 times. Played 40 games for North Melbourne 1977 to 1978 1977 Premiership player. Worst Player is he??

It all helps to encourage posters to consider the readibility of the posts.